Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: picfixer Date: Dec 27, 2011 8:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: PD?

Rats!

Thanks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mr Cranky Date: Dec 28, 2011 4:12am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: PD?

When the name is misspelled as 'Mary Plokford' does that not exempt the status. There seem to be may other such loopholes. Perhaps ypu should just upload and see if a valid claim is made.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: LordOfTheExacto Date: Dec 28, 2011 9:05am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: PD?

Is it actually a misspelling on the film, or is it just the OCR being funky when the printed rolls were digitized? (Or maybe there really was a Mary Plokford.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Dec 28, 2011 10:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: PD?

The OCRed text of the copyright registers contains many typos.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Dec 29, 2011 9:57pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: PD?

Yup, no spellcheck back then.... right?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Dec 30, 2011 8:07am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: PD?

In most cases the text was correct in the printed book, and the error was introduced by the OCR process.

One cannot expect OCR to be perfect. If you examine printing in a paper book with a powerful magnifying glass, you'll see that the letters aren't perfectly formed. No two e's will be exactly the same. (There could have been too much or too little ink on the lead type; the paper could have imperfections, etc.) Furthermore, the OCR program doesn't know what typeface was used in the book, so it doesn't know the exact shape of the characters.

It is amazing that OCR works as well as it does (the algorithms used must be very sophisticated), but a literate human is much better at deciphering letters on paper.


This post was modified by Moongleam on 2011-12-30 16:07:31